Mr. 565, fair enough (wasn't on last night). Was my understanding Khan had said the term was racist, and hence an instance of hypocrisy on his part.
Although your initial post did make me smile, on account of being perpetually called a PBTory for some time. Cameron's idiocy has made that less common of late. I do wonder how the vote will go.
So this is gearing up to be the Maverick vs Establishment GE in yankeeland. FWIW I think Trump is a lot smarter than Hillary and has all the energy and positive 'mo'. I think he'll do it. Joe Blow is way beyond pissed off and 8 more years of Obama with a vagina ain't an attractive offer.
If he hadn't f*cked off the entire Hispanic community (which was trending sharply Republican until recently), as well as a sizeable number of white women (who voted heavily Republican in 2012), then I'd agree with you.
Hillary will be a lousy President, but Trump's tent simply isn't big enough.
Not so Robert.
The last GOP candidate that had any hispanic pull was Bush II and even that was bucking a trend that has been moving Dem way for more than two decades. It allowed Bush to edge Florida with Cuban hispanics but even that GOP sub demographic has melted away.
Note the AIF Florida poll on Monday - Truly awful for Trump and that from a Republican pollster !!
Great a poll from a NeverTrump lobbyist outfit that is well out of line of the other Florida polls that have Trump winning. Trump also leads Cubans in Florida 37 to 31.
Mr. 565, aimed at me? [Been a while since I've been called a PBTory].
No, not aimed at you, it was at the people last night who were shrieking about how Khan was calling moderate Muslims "Uncle Toms", even though one look at the video would have shown people that it wasn't directed at moderate Muslims at all.
It was quite something -- even when I've disagreed with PBers before, I've never known so many to just take a Guido Fawkes or Daily Mail headline at face value without doing even the most basic of their own research first.
Who was it aimed at? Uncle Tom is a revolting term - like Coconut, but with more historical baggage.
I see even the most diehard PBTories have given up on trying to make the Sadiq Khan "Uncle Tom" thing happen.
You have to fear for London if that chap gets in - suspect Londoners will look back on the Boris years with fondness in the future. Still the journalists will have a rich seam of material to mine for the next 4 years uncovering the gravy train.
For the first time ever I am not voting Con tomorrow - Cam and GO can whistle for my vote.
Boris has an extremely colourful past, some of it quite recent. More seriously, whatever you think of their personalities or politics, Ken's legacy is far larger than Boris's. Zac and Sadiq are pygmies compared to either, although tbf, that might change in office.
On the subject of the Mayoral elections, I have absolutely no idea who I am going to vote for. I shall be visiting the polling station because I have a proxy vote to cast, but what I do on my own behalf is in the lap of the gods.
So this is gearing up to be the Maverick vs Establishment GE in yankeeland. FWIW I think Trump is a lot smarter than Hillary and has all the energy and positive 'mo'. I think he'll do it. Joe Blow is way beyond pissed off and 8 more years of Obama with a vagina ain't an attractive offer.
If he hadn't f*cked off the entire Hispanic community (which was trending sharply Republican until recently), as well as a sizeable number of white women (who voted heavily Republican in 2012), then I'd agree with you.
Hillary will be a lousy President, but Trump's tent simply isn't big enough.
Not so Robert.
The last GOP candidate that had any hispanic pull was Bush II and even that was bucking a trend that has been moving Dem way for more than two decades. It allowed Bush to edge Florida with Cuban hispanics but even that GOP sub demographic has melted away.
Note the AIF Florida poll on Monday - Truly awful for Trump and that from a Republican pollster !!
There is some deeply lazy thinking amongst Republicans that Hispanics are 'natural Repiblicans'.
It turns out they aren't.
Quite so.
Further if you look at the most recent swing state polling (including what @LondonBob thinks competitive .. ) the match-up numbers for Trump against Clinton are appalling
Pennsylvania +15 Arizona +7 Florida +13 North Carolina +12 New York +26
Only Ohio +3 offers Trump any solace.
How many of those polls were taken while Trump had the backing of one of the two major parties?
So this is gearing up to be the Maverick vs Establishment GE in yankeeland. FWIW I think Trump is a lot smarter than Hillary and has all the energy and positive 'mo'. I think he'll do it. Joe Blow is way beyond pissed off and 8 more years of Obama with a vagina ain't an attractive offer.
If he hadn't f*cked off the entire Hispanic community (which was trending sharply Republican until recently), as well as a sizeable number of white women (who voted heavily Republican in 2012), then I'd agree with you.
Hillary will be a lousy President, but Trump's tent simply isn't big enough.
Not so Robert.
The last GOP candidate that had any hispanic pull was Bush II and even that was bucking a trend that has been moving Dem way for more than two decades. It allowed Bush to edge Florida with Cuban hispanics but even that GOP sub demographic has melted away.
Note the AIF Florida poll on Monday - Truly awful for Trump and that from a Republican pollster !!
Great a poll from a NeverTrump lobbyist outfit that is well out of line of the other Florida polls that have Trump winning. Trump also leads Cubans in Florida 37 to 31.
On the subject of the Mayoral elections, I have absolutely no idea who I am going to vote for. I shall be visiting the polling station because I have a proxy vote to cast, but what I do on my own behalf is in the lap of the gods.
Is a tragedy Winston McKenzie isn't on the ballot paper, would have been an easy decision for you.
Are you going to repeat your tactical vote of 1992?
On a serious note, given some things (such as the Wehrmacht) are being delayed until after the referendum, the fact this isn't suggests either the pressure on Merkel from Erdogan is massive and immediate, or the EC thinks this won't have an impact on the UK vote.
So this is gearing up to be the Maverick vs Establishment GE in yankeeland. FWIW I think Trump is a lot smarter than Hillary and has all the energy and positive 'mo'. I think he'll do it. Joe Blow is way beyond pissed off and 8 more years of Obama with a vagina ain't an attractive offer.
If he hadn't f*cked off the entire Hispanic community (which was trending sharply Republican until recently), as well as a sizeable number of white women (who voted heavily Republican in 2012), then I'd agree with you.
Hillary will be a lousy President, but Trump's tent simply isn't big enough.
Not so Robert.
The last GOP candidate that had any hispanic pull was Bush II and even that was bucking a trend that has been moving Dem way for more than two decades. It allowed Bush to edge Florida with Cuban hispanics but even that GOP sub demographic has melted away.
Note the AIF Florida poll on Monday - Truly awful for Trump and that from a Republican pollster !!
There is some deeply lazy thinking amongst Republicans that Hispanics are 'natural Repiblicans'.
It turns out they aren't.
Quite so.
Further if you look at the most recent swing state polling (including what @LondonBob thinks competitive .. ) the match-up numbers for Trump against Clinton are appalling
Pennsylvania +15 Arizona +7 Florida +13 North Carolina +12 New York +26
Only Ohio +3 offers Trump any solace.
Always a good idea to put a lot of store in the polls this far out, and especially the more questionable polls. NBC/WSJ are particularly poor, they had the GOP race as competitive.
Mr. 565, aimed at me? [Been a while since I've been called a PBTory].
No, not aimed at you, it was at the people last night who were shrieking about how Khan was calling moderate Muslims "Uncle Toms", even though one look at the video would have shown people that it wasn't directed at moderate Muslims at all.
It was quite something -- even when I've disagreed with PBers before, I've never known so many to just take a Guido Fawkes or Daily Mail headline at face value without doing even the most basic of their own research first.
Who was it aimed at? Uncle Tom is a revolting term - like Coconut, but with more historical baggage.
No idea, but one watch of the video would've shown that it wouldn't make sense for him to be insulting moderate Muslims, since it came literally SECONDS after he was saying how important it was for Muslims to work with the Quilliam Foundation [one of the leading moderate Muslim groups].
Some have suggested he probably meant "Uncle Tom Cobley" (as in, "speak to every tom dick and harry") ratther than the "Uncle Tom's Cabin" meaning.
Mr. 565, aimed at me? [Been a while since I've been called a PBTory].
No, not aimed at you, it was at the people last night who were shrieking about how Khan was calling moderate Muslims "Uncle Toms", even though one look at the video would have shown people that it wasn't directed at moderate Muslims at all.
It was quite something -- even when I've disagreed with PBers before, I've never known so many to just take a Guido Fawkes or Daily Mail headline at face value without doing even the most basic of their own research first.
Who was it aimed at? Uncle Tom is a revolting term - like Coconut, but with more historical baggage.
I think someone was trying to claim last night that Khan was calling the extremists Uncle Toms! It is very clear he was meaning people of his group that were excessively obedient to whites. That is what the term means. It is laughable to claim otherwise.
The election, apart from anything else, will be an interesting field test of the actual (as opposed to stated-to-polls) effect of a negative campaign vs a positive one. The poll shows the perception is that Khan has been largely positive and Goldsmith largely negative (we needn't spend time debating our personal views on that). There is a widespread view among pros that negative trumps positive even if voters tell pollsters otherwise - that's why Labour's final appeal is always "save the NHS from the Tories" and the Tory one is "save the economy from Labour". It would be nice in this (if we're honest) not really important election if it turned out to be wrong.
Danny565 Stop making excuses for this man...If he had meant to say Uncle Tom Cobley then why didn't he,,He plainly said Uncle Tom.. and we all know what that means
So this is gearing up to be the Maverick vs Establishment GE in yankeeland. FWIW I think Trump is a lot smarter than Hillary and has all the energy and positive 'mo'. I think he'll do it. Joe Blow is way beyond pissed off and 8 more years of Obama with a vagina ain't an attractive offer.
If he hadn't f*cked off the entire Hispanic community (which was trending sharply Republican until recently), as well as a sizeable number of white women (who voted heavily Republican in 2012), then I'd agree with you.
Hillary will be a lousy President, but Trump's tent simply isn't big enough.
Not so Robert.
The last GOP candidate that had any hispanic pull was Bush II and even that was bucking a trend that has been moving Dem way for more than two decades. It allowed Bush to edge Florida with Cuban hispanics but even that GOP sub demographic has melted away.
Note the AIF Florida poll on Monday - Truly awful for Trump and that from a Republican pollster !!
There is some deeply lazy thinking amongst Republicans that Hispanics are 'natural Repiblicans'.
It turns out they aren't.
Quite so.
Further if you look at the most recent swing state polling (including what @LondonBob thinks competitive .. ) the match-up numbers for Trump against Clinton are appalling
Pennsylvania +15 Arizona +7 Florida +13 North Carolina +12 New York +26
Only Ohio +3 offers Trump any solace.
Always a good idea to put a lot of store in the polls this far out, and especially the more questionable polls.
Mr. 565, aimed at me? [Been a while since I've been called a PBTory].
No, not aimed at you, it was at the people last night who were shrieking about how Khan was calling moderate Muslims "Uncle Toms", even though one look at the video would have shown people that it wasn't directed at moderate Muslims at all.
It was quite something -- even when I've disagreed with PBers before, I've never known so many to just take a Guido Fawkes or Daily Mail headline at face value without doing even the most basic of their own research first.
Yes, the Telegraph today runs it as a Tory press release - as an election-eve bombshell, a passing phrase 7 years ago doesn't really get them very far.
So this is gearing up to be the Maverick vs Establishment GE in yankeeland. FWIW I think Trump is a lot smarter than Hillary and has all the energy and positive 'mo'. I think he'll do it. Joe Blow is way beyond pissed off and 8 more years of Obama with a vagina ain't an attractive offer.
If he hadn't f*cked off the entire Hispanic community (which was trending sharply Republican until recently), as well as a sizeable number of white women (who voted heavily Republican in 2012), then I'd agree with you.
Hillary will be a lousy President, but Trump's tent simply isn't big enough.
Not so Robert.
The last GOP candidate that had any hispanic pull was Bush II and even that was bucking a trend that has been moving Dem way for more than two decades. It allowed Bush to edge Florida with Cuban hispanics but even that GOP sub demographic has melted away.
Note the AIF Florida poll on Monday - Truly awful for Trump and that from a Republican pollster !!
There is some deeply lazy thinking amongst Republicans that Hispanics are 'natural Repiblicans'.
It turns out they aren't.
Quite so.
Further if you look at the most recent swing state polling (including what @LondonBob thinks competitive .. ) the match-up numbers for Trump against Clinton are appalling
Pennsylvania +15 Arizona +7 Florida +13 North Carolina +12 New York +26
Only Ohio +3 offers Trump any solace.
How many of those polls were taken while Trump had the backing of one of the two major parties?
Mr. Eagles, that's a slab of don't knows. Have to break 2/3 for Leave, on the Wisdom Index, for Leave to be ahead. That said, some will be voting to Leave who think Remain will win (as I will).
Danny565 Stop making excuses for this man...If he had meant to say Uncle Tom Cobley then why didn't he,,He plainly said Uncle Tom.. and we all know what that means
Like I said last night: why would he be insulting someone a minute after explaining why he was working with them? Why would he be saying it was a bad thing for Muslims to work with the government, when KHAN HIMSELF was in charge of the government talking to Muslims at the time of the video?!?
On the subject of the Mayoral elections, I have absolutely no idea who I am going to vote for. I shall be visiting the polling station because I have a proxy vote to cast, but what I do on my own behalf is in the lap of the gods.
Yesterday someone (apologies can't remember who) put it v well:
A cr*p party and an ok candidate or an ok party and a cr*p candidate.
I am seriously thinking of not voting. Not in a NOTA sense just a meh sense (and I *hate* the thought of not voting). In the end I will probably vote Zac because although it turns my stomach to see a self-entitled, priveleged, inconsequential, enviroloon get anywhere near the reins of power, he might just be ineffectual enough for us not to notice his tenure in office.
So this is gearing up to be the Maverick vs Establishment GE in yankeeland. FWIW I think Trump is a lot smarter than Hillary and has all the energy and positive 'mo'. I think he'll do it. Joe Blow is way beyond pissed off and 8 more years of Obama with a vagina ain't an attractive offer.
If he hadn't f*cked off the entire Hispanic community (which was trending sharply Republican until recently), as well as a sizeable number of white women (who voted heavily Republican in 2012), then I'd agree with you.
Hillary will be a lousy President, but Trump's tent simply isn't big enough.
Not so Robert.
The last GOP candidate that had any hispanic pull was Bush II and even that was bucking a trend that has been moving Dem way for more than two decades. It allowed Bush to edge Florida with Cuban hispanics but even that GOP sub demographic has melted away.
Note the AIF Florida poll on Monday - Truly awful for Trump and that from a Republican pollster !!
There is some deeply lazy thinking amongst Republicans that Hispanics are 'natural Repiblicans'.
It turns out they aren't.
Quite so.
Further if you look at the most recent swing state polling (including what @LondonBob thinks competitive .. ) the match-up numbers for Trump against Clinton are appalling
Pennsylvania +15 Arizona +7 Florida +13 North Carolina +12 New York +26
Only Ohio +3 offers Trump any solace.
Always a good idea to put a lot of store in the polls this far out, and especially the more questionable polls. NBC/WSJ are particularly poor, they had the GOP race as competitive.
Danny565 Stop making excuses for this man...If he had meant to say Uncle Tom Cobley then why didn't he,,He plainly said Uncle Tom.. and we all know what that means
Like I said last night: why would he be insulting someone a minute after explaining why he was working with them? Why would he be saying it was a bad thing for Muslims to work with the government, when KHAN HIMSELF was in charge of the government talking to Muslims at the time of the video?!?
His argument was that he needed to work with people who disagree with him, such as Uncle Toms like the Quilliam Foundation.
So this is gearing up to be the Maverick vs Establishment GE in yankeeland. FWIW I think Trump is a lot smarter than Hillary and has all the energy and positive 'mo'. I think he'll do it. Joe Blow is way beyond pissed off and 8 more years of Obama with a vagina ain't an attractive offer.
If he hadn't f*cked off the entire Hispanic community (which was trending sharply Republican until recently), as well as a sizeable number of white women (who voted heavily Republican in 2012), then I'd agree with you.
Hillary will be a lousy President, but Trump's tent simply isn't big enough.
Not so Robert.
The last GOP candidate that had any hispanic pull was Bush II and even that was bucking a trend that has been moving Dem way for more than two decades. It allowed Bush to edge Florida with Cuban hispanics but even that GOP sub demographic has melted away.
Note the AIF Florida poll on Monday - Truly awful for Trump and that from a Republican pollster !!
There is some deeply lazy thinking amongst Republicans that Hispanics are 'natural Repiblicans'.
It turns out they aren't.
Quite so.
Further if you look at the most recent swing state polling (including what @LondonBob thinks competitive .. ) the match-up numbers for Trump against Clinton are appalling
Pennsylvania +15 Arizona +7 Florida +13 North Carolina +12 New York +26
Only Ohio +3 offers Trump any solace.
Always a good idea to put a lot of store in the polls this far out, and especially the more questionable polls.
Not sure where you are cherry picking those figures from?
You seem quite happy to quote polls that suit you.
I post all the polls that I see and let PBers make their own mind up. Do your research !!
So 12 polls in Florida with 7 having Trump leading. Two of the polls having Clinton leading, clear outliers, are by a lobbyist group and the other by NBC/WSJ/Marist who have consistently under polled Trump in the Republican national race.
Doing some crude back of the sweet wrapper (no smoking in the office) calculations, I have Khan at 45 Goldsmith at 37 and the rest on 18 and Khan winning 55-45 which isn't far off the poll but there you go.
UKIP, Greens and Lib Dems are statistically tied for third but I think all three will get over the 5% GLA threshold.
Anyway, the 1.11 on a Sadiq Khan victory on Betfair looks a very good short priced bet given the last few polls. If he loses, opinion polls can officially be treated as toilet paper: the leads that they are disclosing should not be overturned by "late swing" or like excuses.
So this is gearing up to be the Maverick vs Establishment GE in yankeeland. FWIW I think Trump is a lot smarter than Hillary and has all the energy and positive 'mo'. I think he'll do it. Joe Blow is way beyond pissed off and 8 more years of Obama with a vagina ain't an attractive offer.
If he hadn't f*cked off the entire Hispanic community (which was trending sharply Republican until recently), as well as a sizeable number of white women (who voted heavily Republican in 2012), then I'd agree with you.
Hillary will be a lousy President, but Trump's tent simply isn't big enough.
Not so Robert.
The last GOP candidate that had any hispanic pull was Bush II and even that was bucking a trend that has been moving Dem way for more than two decades. It allowed Bush to edge Florida with Cuban hispanics but even that GOP sub demographic has melted away.
Note the AIF Florida poll on Monday - Truly awful for Trump and that from a Republican pollster !!
There is some deeply lazy thinking amongst Republicans that Hispanics are 'natural Repiblicans'.
It turns out they aren't.
Quite so.
Further if you look at the most recent swing state polling (including what @LondonBob thinks competitive .. ) the match-up numbers for Trump against Clinton are appalling
Pennsylvania +15 Arizona +7 Florida +13 North Carolina +12 New York +26
Only Ohio +3 offers Trump any solace.
Always a good idea to put a lot of store in the polls this far out, and especially the more questionable polls. NBC/WSJ are particularly poor, they had the GOP race as competitive.
Although that looks like quite an outlier based on what we have seen (neck and neck ish polls) - that makes more sense to me from what I'm hearing from people I know. The blunt truth is that very few people are really interested in the whole EU issue. They just don't see the importance of the EU to their everyday lives.
Isn't that just an echo of the same misreading coming from the US establishment? Trump has been remarkably consistent in his views on he big issues for many decades. It goes without saying that he has a huge ego but his reason for being in the race is to win and change the direction of America.
Hmm. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he liberal on abortion until he wasn't? Relaxed about immigration until he wanted to build a wall? A personal friend of the Clintons until he decided to run?
Mr. 565, aimed at me? [Been a while since I've been called a PBTory].
No, not aimed at you, it was at the people last night who were shrieking about how Khan was calling moderate Muslims "Uncle Toms", even though one look at the video would have shown people that it wasn't directed at moderate Muslims at all.
It was quite something -- even when I've disagreed with PBers before, I've never known so many to just take a Guido Fawkes or Daily Mail headline at face value without doing even the most basic of their own research first.
Who was it aimed at? Uncle Tom is a revolting term - like Coconut, but with more historical baggage.
No idea, but one watch of the video would've shown that it wouldn't make sense for him to be insulting moderate Muslims, since it came literally SECONDS after he was saying how important it was for Muslims to work with the Quilliam Foundation [one of the leading moderate Muslim groups].
Some have suggested he probably meant "Uncle Tom Cobley" (as in, "speak to every tom dick and harry") ratther than the "Uncle Tom's Cabin" meaning.
On the subject of the Mayoral elections, I have absolutely no idea who I am going to vote for. I shall be visiting the polling station because I have a proxy vote to cast, but what I do on my own behalf is in the lap of the gods.
Yesterday someone (apologies can't remember who) put it v well:
A cr*p party and an ok candidate or an ok party and a cr*p candidate.
I am seriously thinking of not voting. Not in a NOTA sense just a meh sense (and I *hate* the thought of not voting). In the end I will probably vote Zac because although it turns my stomach to see a self-entitled, priveleged, inconsequential, enviroloon get anywhere near the reins of power, he might just be ineffectual enough for us not to notice his tenure in office.
Then again I might vote for Sadiq.
You might vote Labour? The party you want to ban from office?!
Although that looks like quite an outlier based on what we have seen (neck and neck ish polls) - that makes more sense to me from what I'm hearing from people I know. The blunt truth is that very few people are really interested in the whole EU issue. They just don't see the importance of the EU to their everyday lives.
The actual poll has it
Remain 39% (+1) Leave 36% (+2)
What I quoted above was the Wisdom Index poll of what people expected the result to be.
Wonder how wise it was for Cam to slag off Trump when he thought he couldn't win.
Another crass decision by no 10.
Yup.
Yup again. The Times this morning headlines this warning message from Trump advisers. Apologise to Mr Trump, Mr Cameron, or you're are in our bad books and relations will suffer.
Off topic, is there anyone here who knows about breakdown insurance?
I've just had my renewal premium through from the AA: £202.50 for roadside recovery, relay and home start. That's almost as much as I pay for my fully comp car insurance.
Off topic, is there anyone here who knows about breakdown insurance?
I've just had my renewal premium through from the AA: £202.50 for roadside recovery, relay and home start. That's almost as much as I pay for my fully comp car insurance.
I think they're taking the Frau Merkel.
Are there any better offers out there?
I used Green Flag on line at an annual premium for 'recovery plus' of £51.46 renewed in January 2016
Although that looks like quite an outlier based on what we have seen (neck and neck ish polls) - that makes more sense to me from what I'm hearing from people I know. The blunt truth is that very few people are really interested in the whole EU issue. They just don't see the importance of the EU to their everyday lives.
I'm not sure it tells us very much. I would have answered Remain to that question.
So this is gearing up to be the Maverick vs Establishment GE in yankeeland. FWIW I think Trump is a lot smarter than Hillary and has all the energy and positive 'mo'. I think he'll do it. Joe Blow is way beyond pissed off and 8 more years of Obama with a vagina ain't an attractive offer.
If he hadn't f*cked off the entire Hispanic community (which was trending sharply Republican until recently), as well as a sizeable number of white women (who voted heavily Republican in 2012), then I'd agree with you.
Hillary will be a lousy President, but Trump's tent simply isn't big enough.
Not so Robert.
The last GOP candidate that had any hispanic pull was Bush II and even that was bucking a trend that has been moving Dem way for more than two decades. It allowed Bush to edge Florida with Cuban hispanics but even that GOP sub demographic has melted away.
Note the AIF Florida poll on Monday - Truly awful for Trump and that from a Republican pollster !!
There is some deeply lazy thinking amongst Republicans that Hispanics are 'natural Repiblicans'.
It turns out they aren't.
Quite so.
Further if you look at the most recent swing state polling (including what @LondonBob thinks competitive .. ) the match-up numbers for Trump against Clinton are appalling
Pennsylvania +15 Arizona +7 Florida +13 North Carolina +12 New York +26
Only Ohio +3 offers Trump any solace.
Always a good idea to put a lot of store in the polls this far out, and especially the more questionable polls. NBC/WSJ are particularly poor, they had the GOP race as competitive.
Although that looks like quite an outlier based on what we have seen (neck and neck ish polls) - that makes more sense to me from what I'm hearing from people I know. The blunt truth is that very few people are really interested in the whole EU issue. They just don't see the importance of the EU to their everyday lives.
The actual poll has it
Remain 39% (+1) Leave 36% (+2)
What I quoted above was the Wisdom Index poll of what people expected the result to be.
My point is that most people have already turned off - they think that whatever their own intentions, Remain will have it in the bag because people aren't that engaged. Lack of engagement = status quo = remain
Although that looks like quite an outlier based on what we have seen (neck and neck ish polls) - that makes more sense to me from what I'm hearing from people I know. The blunt truth is that very few people are really interested in the whole EU issue. They just don't see the importance of the EU to their everyday lives.
The actual poll has it
Remain 39% (+1) Leave 36% (+2)
What I quoted above was the Wisdom Index poll of what people expected the result to be.
My point is that most people have already turned off - they think that whatever their own intentions, Remain will have it in the bag because people aren't that engaged. Lack of engagement = status quo = remain
Anyway, the 1.11 on a Sadiq Khan victory on Betfair looks a very good short priced bet given the last few polls. If he loses, opinion polls can officially be treated as toilet paper: the leads that they are disclosing should not be overturned by "late swing" or like excuses.
Danny565 Stop making excuses for this man...If he had meant to say Uncle Tom Cobley then why didn't he,,He plainly said Uncle Tom.. and we all know what that means
Like I said last night: why would he be insulting someone a minute after explaining why he was working with them? Why would he be saying it was a bad thing for Muslims to work with the government, when KHAN HIMSELF was in charge of the government talking to Muslims at the time of the video?!?
His argument was that he needed to work with people who disagree with him, such as Uncle Toms like the Quilliam Foundation.
No, that wasn't what he was saying at all. Both he and the interviewer singled out the Quilliam Foundation as someone who he DID agree with, and the interviewer was asking why he didn't also talk to people who they didn't agree with [i.e. more anti-government hardline Muslim groups].
See from 3:22 (starting with the interviewer's question "there's been some criticism that your department is only speaking to people who agree with your policies, like the Quilliam Foundation - when are you going to start talking to people who disagree with you?"
On topic. I wanted a brokered convention Godamnit.
Said for months that won't happen. There has never before been one in the modern era of winner takes all primaries and caucuses at the end of the schedule. Makes it almost impossible realistically.
Although that looks like quite an outlier based on what we have seen (neck and neck ish polls) - that makes more sense to me from what I'm hearing from people I know. The blunt truth is that very few people are really interested in the whole EU issue. They just don't see the importance of the EU to their everyday lives.
The actual poll has it
Remain 39% (+1) Leave 36% (+2)
What I quoted above was the Wisdom Index poll of what people expected the result to be.
My point is that most people have already turned off - they think that whatever their own intentions, Remain will have it in the bag because people aren't that engaged. Lack of engagement = status quo = remain
Far too early to stick a fork in it. We've weeks to go. Most voters aren't paying much attention until the final 4, then really in final 2.
If the latest polling is correct then Mayor Khan looks nailed on. It just goes to back up what I was saying last month that running a campaign based on "project fear" is no guarantee of success. For project fear to work the fear has to be credible and specific.
I would say the Tory campaign has failed because the charge that Khan is an extremist is not credible:
He doesn't look like an extremist (he wears western clothes and no beard) He doesn't sound like an extremist His voting record is not that of an extremist (voted for gay marriage)
And even if he is an extremist, what then? It's not like the mayor has powers over the security services.
By contrast, Miliband in Sturgeon's pocket was credible as Miliband was seen as weak, while Sturgeon was seen as standing up for Scotland (to the detriment of England)
So this is gearing up to be the Maverick vs Establishment GE in yankeeland. FWIW I think Trump is a lot smarter than Hillary and has all the energy and positive 'mo'. I think he'll do it. Joe Blow is way beyond pissed off and 8 more years of Obama with a vagina ain't an attractive offer.
If he hadn't f*cked off the entire Hispanic community (which was trending sharply Republican until recently), as well as a sizeable number of white women (who voted heavily Republican in 2012), then I'd agree with you.
Hillary will be a lousy President, but Trump's tent simply isn't big enough.
Not so Robert.
The last GOP candidate that had any hispanic pull was Bush II and even that was bucking a trend that has been moving Dem way for more than two decades. It allowed Bush to edge Florida with Cuban hispanics but even that GOP sub demographic has melted away.
Note the AIF Florida poll on Monday - Truly awful for Trump and that from a Republican pollster !!
There is some deeply lazy thinking amongst Republicans that Hispanics are 'natural Repiblicans'.
It turns out they aren't.
Quite so.
Further if you look at the most recent swing state polling (including what @LondonBob thinks competitive .. ) the match-up numbers for Trump against Clinton are appalling
Pennsylvania +15 Arizona +7 Florida +13 North Carolina +12 New York +26
Only Ohio +3 offers Trump any solace.
Always a good idea to put a lot of store in the polls this far out, and especially the more questionable polls.
Not sure where you are cherry picking those figures from?
You seem quite happy to quote polls that suit you.
I post all the polls that I see and let PBers make their own mind up. Do your research !!
So 12 polls in Florida with 7 having Trump leading. Two of the polls having Clinton leading, clear outliers, are by a lobbyist group and the other by NBC/WSJ/Marist who have consistently under polled Trump in the Republican national race.
JackW's normally pert muscular ARSE turns to sagging wobbly jelly for his sweet heart Hillary. It's horrible to see.
On the subject of the Mayoral elections, I have absolutely no idea who I am going to vote for. I shall be visiting the polling station because I have a proxy vote to cast, but what I do on my own behalf is in the lap of the gods.
Yesterday someone (apologies can't remember who) put it v well:
A cr*p party and an ok candidate or an ok party and a cr*p candidate.
I am seriously thinking of not voting. Not in a NOTA sense just a meh sense (and I *hate* the thought of not voting). In the end I will probably vote Zac because although it turns my stomach to see a self-entitled, priveleged, inconsequential, enviroloon get anywhere near the reins of power, he might just be ineffectual enough for us not to notice his tenure in office.
Then again I might vote for Sadiq.
You might vote Labour? The party you want to ban from office?!
You're not the Topping I used to know.
hahaha! It is certainly a dilemma. But you know how Londoners are - they can be perverse when it comes to the Mayor.
Validating the rights of the 2 million Britons living in the EU after Brexit – and of EU citizens resident in Britain – would be a “complex and daunting task”, a cross-party parliamentary report will warn on Wednesday.
Negotiations might have to be prolonged beyond the two years allowed for, although the European parliament and individual member states could jeopardise any extension of the process, according to the House of Lords European Union committee.
Agreeing a trade deal with the EU is likely to take even longer, peers suggest, between four and nine years if past experience is anything to go by.
Despite the government’s repeated advice that the referendum vote will be final, the report points out that it would still be possible to reverse a decision to withdraw from the EU – for example if there was a change of government.
The 19-member committee, chaired by the former Conservative MP Lord Boswell of Aynho, avoided expressing any view on Brexit. Their review is based on testimony from two senior lawyers, Sir David Edward, a former judge at the court of justice of the European Union, and Prof Derrick Wyatt QC, emeritus professor of law at Oxford University.
Danny565 Stop making excuses for this man...If he had meant to say Uncle Tom Cobley then why didn't he,,He plainly said Uncle Tom.. and we all know what that means
Like I said last night: why would he be insulting someone a minute after explaining why he was working with them? Why would he be saying it was a bad thing for Muslims to work with the government, when KHAN HIMSELF was in charge of the government talking to Muslims at the time of the video?!?
His argument was that he needed to work with people who disagree with him, such as Uncle Toms like the Quilliam Foundation.
No, that wasn't what he was saying at all. Both he and the interviewer singled out the Quilliam Foundation as someone who he DID agree with, and the interviewer was asking why he didn't also talk to people who they didn't agree with [i.e. more anti-government hardline Muslim groups].
See from 3:22 (starting with the interviewer's question "there's been some criticism that your department is only speaking to people who agree with your policies, like the Quilliam Foundation - when are you going to start talking to people who disagree with you?"
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1-5danu5rQ
So I'll ask again: how would it make sense for him to be insulting Muslims seconds after saying he agreed with them?
When you're explaining at this level - you're losing. We all know what Uncle Tom means. Sadiq used it and also said it was racist. That's the point.
Off topic, is there anyone here who knows about breakdown insurance?
I've just had my renewal premium through from the AA: £202.50 for roadside recovery, relay and home start. That's almost as much as I pay for my fully comp car insurance.
Off topic, is there anyone here who knows about breakdown insurance?
I've just had my renewal premium through from the AA: £202.50 for roadside recovery, relay and home start. That's almost as much as I pay for my fully comp car insurance.
I think they're taking the Frau Merkel.
Are there any better offers out there?
I used Green Flag on line at an annual premium for 'recovery plus' of £51.46 renewed in January 2016
Most brokers have their pet schemes - but are often limited to the car insured, The AA is expensive but at least you get cover for every car you drive and every member of your family IIRC. (Not sure what GF do). Since GF is owned by Direct Line I studiously avoid them - conflict of interest). Some policies will provide breakdown cover automatically e.g. Zurich standard contracts provide roadside assistance and recovery when you are away from home.
Ultimately price is not everything - when you go with the AA you get one of their fleet of dedicated vehicles to come and sort things out, with GF they tend (I think) to use nearby garages.
Validating the rights of the 2 million Britons living in the EU after Brexit – and of EU citizens resident in Britain – would be a “complex and daunting task”, a cross-party parliamentary report will warn on Wednesday.
Negotiations might have to be prolonged beyond the two years allowed for, although the European parliament and individual member states could jeopardise any extension of the process, according to the House of Lords European Union committee.
Agreeing a trade deal with the EU is likely to take even longer, peers suggest, between four and nine years if past experience is anything to go by.
Despite the government’s repeated advice that the referendum vote will be final, the report points out that it would still be possible to reverse a decision to withdraw from the EU – for example if there was a change of government.
The 19-member committee, chaired by the former Conservative MP Lord Boswell of Aynho, avoided expressing any view on Brexit. Their review is based on testimony from two senior lawyers, Sir David Edward, a former judge at the court of justice of the European Union, and Prof Derrick Wyatt QC, emeritus professor of law at Oxford University.
Danny565 Stop making excuses for this man...If he had meant to say Uncle Tom Cobley then why didn't he,,He plainly said Uncle Tom.. and we all know what that means
Like I said last night: why would he be insulting someone a minute after explaining why he was working with them? Why would he be saying it was a bad thing for Muslims to work with the government, when KHAN HIMSELF was in charge of the government talking to Muslims at the time of the video?!?
His argument was that he needed to work with people who disagree with him, such as Uncle Toms like the Quilliam Foundation.
No, that wasn't what he was saying at all. Both he and the interviewer singled out the Quilliam Foundation as someone who he DID agree with, and the interviewer was asking why he didn't also talk to people who they didn't agree with [i.e. more anti-government hardline Muslim groups].
See from 3:22 (starting with the interviewer's question "there's been some criticism that your department is only speaking to people who agree with your policies, like the Quilliam Foundation - when are you going to start talking to people who disagree with you?"
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1-5danu5rQ
So I'll ask again: how would it make sense for him to be insulting Muslims seconds after saying he agreed with them?
When you're explaining at this level - you're losing. We all know what Uncle Tom means. Sadiq used it and also said it was racist. That's the point.
Have you watched the video for yourself, or are you still solely basing it on the Daily Mail headline?
Off topic, is there anyone here who knows about breakdown insurance?
I've just had my renewal premium through from the AA: £202.50 for roadside recovery, relay and home start. That's almost as much as I pay for my fully comp car insurance.
Off topic, is there anyone here who knows about breakdown insurance?
I've just had my renewal premium through from the AA: £202.50 for roadside recovery, relay and home start. That's almost as much as I pay for my fully comp car insurance.
I think they're taking the Frau Merkel.
Are there any better offers out there?
I used Green Flag on line at an annual premium for 'recovery plus' of £51.46 renewed in January 2016
Thanks. They are quoting me £101 for the same so not much of a contest at the moment. I am going to phone AA and see if they can match it.
Danny565 Stop making excuses for this man...If he had meant to say Uncle Tom Cobley then why didn't he,,He plainly said Uncle Tom.. and we all know what that means
Like I said last night: why would he be insulting someone a minute after explaining why he was working with them? Why would he be saying it was a bad thing for Muslims to work with the government, when KHAN HIMSELF was in charge of the government talking to Muslims at the time of the video?!?
His argument was that he needed to work with people who disagree with him, such as Uncle Toms like the Quilliam Foundation.
No, that wasn't what he was saying at all. Both he and the interviewer singled out the Quilliam Foundation as someone who he DID agree with, and the interviewer was asking why he didn't also talk to people who they didn't agree with [i.e. more anti-government hardline Muslim groups].
See from 3:22 (starting with the interviewer's question "there's been some criticism that your department is only speaking to people who agree with your policies, like the Quilliam Foundation - when are you going to start talking to people who disagree with you?"
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1-5danu5rQ
So I'll ask again: how would it make sense for him to be insulting Muslims seconds after saying he agreed with them?
When you're explaining at this level - you're losing. We all know what Uncle Tom means. Sadiq used it and also said it was racist. That's the point.
Have you watched the video for yourself, or are you still solely basing it on the Daily Mail headline?
I've not watched the video but can you give a single reason why he's used a term he defines as racist? You keep saying he didn't mean what he said, so what DID he mean?
If the latest polling is correct then Mayor Khan looks nailed on. It just goes to back up what I was saying last month that running a campaign based on "project fear" is no guarantee of success. For project fear to work the fear has to be credible and specific.
I would say the Tory campaign has failed because the charge that Khan is an extremist is not credible:
He doesn't look like an extremist (he wears western clothes and no beard) He doesn't sound like an extremist His voting record is not that of an extremist (voted for gay marriage)
And even if he is an extremist, what then? It's not like the mayor has powers over the security services.
By contrast, Miliband in Sturgeon's pocket was credible as Miliband was seen as weak, while Sturgeon was seen as standing up for Scotland (to the detriment of England)
No, but London's Mayor can be under pressure from ethnic communities to allow languages other than English to have official status within London. He or she has to determine their attitude to that pressure, i.e. to upset somebody. Khan's phrase "British citizens of Muslim faith" will certainly upset Muslim radicals (as I think of them: they'd probably call themselves "devout".)
Validating the rights of the 2 million Britons living in the EU after Brexit – and of EU citizens resident in Britain – would be a “complex and daunting task”, a cross-party parliamentary report will warn on Wednesday.
Negotiations might have to be prolonged beyond the two years allowed for, although the European parliament and individual member states could jeopardise any extension of the process, according to the House of Lords European Union committee.
Agreeing a trade deal with the EU is likely to take even longer, peers suggest, between four and nine years if past experience is anything to go by.
Despite the government’s repeated advice that the referendum vote will be final, the report points out that it would still be possible to reverse a decision to withdraw from the EU – for example if there was a change of government.
The 19-member committee, chaired by the former Conservative MP Lord Boswell of Aynho, avoided expressing any view on Brexit. Their review is based on testimony from two senior lawyers, Sir David Edward, a former judge at the court of justice of the European Union, and Prof Derrick Wyatt QC, emeritus professor of law at Oxford University.
I suspect we would mutually respect those who'd already exercised an EU treaty right as it says here:
"My guess is that the inclination of government and parliament would be to be generous as regards those who had already made their lives in the UK, knowing that it would be likely to be reciprocated.”
I don't say it's wrong, it feels about right based on what we know, but we know how GE2015 turned out.
Inevitably this is the case, but at least Prof. Fisher is attempting to introduce factors other than relying solely on the leading pollsters. His "Combined Forecast (mean)" is in fact a combination of the following:
Betting Markets (Yes really - quite a departure for an academic!) Polls (of course) Expert forecasts (whoever they are) Volunteer forecasts ( -ditto- ) Poll based models (eh???) Non poll based models ( -ditto- )
Which all sounds very impressive, but the truth be told, across these six categories the percentage ranges are quite narrow with Remain scoring between 52.0% - 55.6%, and Leave between 43.8% - 48.0%. Check out the website for yourself.
Danny565 Stop making excuses for this man...If he had meant to say Uncle Tom Cobley then why didn't he,,He plainly said Uncle Tom.. and we all know what that means
Like I said last night: why would he be insulting someone a minute after explaining why he was working with them? Why would he be saying it was a bad thing for Muslims to work with the government, when KHAN HIMSELF was in charge of the government talking to Muslims at the time of the video?!?
His argument was that he needed to work with people who disagree with him, such as Uncle Toms like the Quilliam Foundation.
No, that wasn't what he was saying at all. Both he and the interviewer singled out the Quilliam Foundation as someone who he DID agree with, and the interviewer was asking why he didn't also talk to people who they didn't agree with [i.e. more anti-government hardline Muslim groups].
See from 3:22 (starting with the interviewer's question "there's been some criticism that your department is only speaking to people who agree with your policies, like the Quilliam Foundation - when are you going to start talking to people who disagree with you?"
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1-5danu5rQ
So I'll ask again: how would it make sense for him to be insulting Muslims seconds after saying he agreed with them?
When you're explaining at this level - you're losing. We all know what Uncle Tom means. Sadiq used it and also said it was racist. That's the point.
Have you watched the video for yourself, or are you still solely basing it on the Daily Mail headline?
Have you watched the video for yourself, or are you still solely basing it on the Daily Mail headline?
He gave an interview while a government minister on the vile Iranian propaganda channel Press TV - a station dripping with all the repulsive extremism of a government that publicly hangs people on cranes for being gay - he chose to do that and then used the 'Uncle Tom' remark.
Both goldsmith and Khan are campaigning on identity politics not policies and I only wish they could both lose but it isn't going to happen
I see even the most diehard PBTories have given up on trying to make the Sadiq Khan "Uncle Tom" thing happen.
You have to fear for London if that chap gets in - suspect Londoners will look back on the Boris years with fondness in the future. Still the journalists will have a rich seam of material to mine for the next 4 years uncovering the gravy train.
For the first time ever I am not voting Con tomorrow - Cam and GO can whistle for my vote.
It's not Khan - it is the probable hangers on that are my cause for concern.
Wonder if any media is going to be hanging around certain areas of London looking for over-enthusiastic persuasion.
I've not watched the video but can you give a single reason why he's used a term he defines as racist? You keep saying he didn't mean what he said, so what DID he mean?
See this post from last night about what Khan could've meant (from JohnLoony who, from memory, is no Labour supporter):
The flocking of left wingers here to offer up various unconvincing defences of Khan shows they are panicking about the latest revelation. Who exactly was Sadiq Khan referring to as "Uncle Toms" if he wasn't calling anyone by that term? That's an even worse argument than trying to distract by pointing to what some blogger said about traitors.
Watch the video. The answer is that he was talking about nobody, about a policy he said you couldn't follow, and that he didn't follow. Instead, he said you need to speak to critical friends like Quilliam. It is a lesson in two things: First, try not to use the language of slavery and Jim Crow in South-Eastern England. Second, politicians should never talk about hypotheticals.
It sounded as if he said "Uncle Tom" (not "Uncle Toms"), as in "Uncle Tom Cobbley and all" (i.e. everybody).
I don't know whether that's the correct interpretation, but it makes a hell of a lot more sense than him calling Muslims traitors if they talked to the government, a second after saying how it was important for Muslims to talk to government.
Have you watched the video for yourself, or are you still solely basing it on the Daily Mail headline?
He gave an interview while a government minister on the vile Iranian propaganda channel Press TV - a station dripping with all the repulsive extremism of a government that publicly hangs people on cranes for being gay - he chose to do that and then used the 'Uncle Tom' remark.
Both goldsmith and Khan are campaigning on identity politics not policies and I only wish they could both lose but it isn't going to happen
Is there somewhere where I can see the full interview please?
Danny565 Stop making excuses for this man...If he had meant to say Uncle Tom Cobley then why didn't he,,He plainly said Uncle Tom.. and we all know what that means
Like I said last night: why would he be insulting someone a minute after explaining why he was working with them? Why would he be saying it was a bad thing for Muslims to work with the government, when KHAN HIMSELF was in charge of the government talking to Muslims at the time of the video?!?
His argument was that he needed to work with people who disagree with him, such as Uncle Toms like the Quilliam Foundation.
No, that wasn't what he was saying at all. Both he and the interviewer singled out the Quilliam Foundation as someone who he DID agree with, and the interviewer was asking why he didn't also talk to people who they didn't agree with [i.e. more anti-government hardline Muslim groups].
See from 3:22 (starting with the interviewer's question "there's been some criticism that your department is only speaking to people who agree with your policies, like the Quilliam Foundation - when are you going to start talking to people who disagree with you?"
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1-5danu5rQ
So I'll ask again: how would it make sense for him to be insulting Muslims seconds after saying he agreed with them?
When you're explaining at this level - you're losing. We all know what Uncle Tom means. Sadiq used it and also said it was racist. That's the point.
Have you watched the video for yourself, or are you still solely basing it on the Daily Mail headline?
Of course I watched it.
So why do you think he would be insulting moderate Muslims, just seconds after praising moderate Muslims and defending HIS OWN GOVERNMENT OF WHICH HE WAS A MINISTER talking to them?
On the subject of the Mayoral elections, I have absolutely no idea who I am going to vote for. I shall be visiting the polling station because I have a proxy vote to cast, but what I do on my own behalf is in the lap of the gods.
Yesterday someone (apologies can't remember who) put it v well:
A cr*p party and an ok candidate or an ok party and a cr*p candidate.
I am seriously thinking of not voting. Not in a NOTA sense just a meh sense (and I *hate* the thought of not voting). In the end I will probably vote Zac because although it turns my stomach to see a self-entitled, priveleged, inconsequential, enviroloon get anywhere near the reins of power, he might just be ineffectual enough for us not to notice his tenure in office.
Then again I might vote for Sadiq.
You're thinking of voting for Labour? What happened to you? Were the Leave side so beastly to you that you've jumped ship or something?
Both goldsmith and Khan are campaigning on identity politics not policies and I only wish they could both lose but it isn't going to happen
Totally agree. Can't stand either of them, but I'll vote for the hopeless Zac because there is no way I'm letting a Corbyn led Labour Party anywhere near power if I have a say. I don't think I have ever faced a vote with less enthusiasm.
I don't say it's wrong, it feels about right based on what we know, but we know how GE2015 turned out.
Inevitably this is the case, but at least Prof. Fisher is attempting to introduce factors other than relying solely on the leading pollsters. His "Combined Forecast (mean)" is in fact a combination of the following:
Betting Markets (Yes really - quite a departure for an academic!) Polls (of course) Expert forecasts (whoever they are) Volunteer forecasts ( -ditto- ) Poll based models (eh???) Non poll based models ( -ditto- )
Which all sounds very impressive, but the truth be told, across these six categories the percentage ranges are quite narrow with Remain scoring between 52.0% - 55.6%, and Leave between 43.8% - 48.0%. Check out the website for yourself.
Yup, thanks - I read it. It's a useful executive summary of what's out there but doesn't seem to be much more than an average of the lot to me.
Danny565 Stop making excuses for this man...If he had meant to say Uncle Tom Cobley then why didn't he,,He plainly said Uncle Tom.. and we all know what that means
Like I said last night: why would he be insulting someone a minute after explaining why he was working with them? Why would he be saying it was a bad thing for Muslims to work with the government, when KHAN HIMSELF was in charge of the government talking to Muslims at the time of the video?!?
His argument was that he needed to work with people who disagree with him, such as Uncle Toms like the Quilliam Foundation.
No, that wasn't what he was saying at all. Both he and the interviewer singled out the Quilliam Foundation as someone who he DID agree with, and the interviewer was asking why he didn't also talk to people who they didn't agree with [i.e. more anti-government hardline Muslim groups].
See from 3:22 (starting with the interviewer's question "there's been some criticism that your department is only speaking to people who agree with your policies, like the Quilliam Foundation - when are you going to start talking to people who disagree with you?"
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1-5danu5rQ
So I'll ask again: how would it make sense for him to be insulting Muslims seconds after saying he agreed with them?
When you're explaining at this level - you're losing. We all know what Uncle Tom means. Sadiq used it and also said it was racist. That's the point.
Have you watched the video for yourself, or are you still solely basing it on the Daily Mail headline?
I've just watched it. I don't have an axe to grind against Khan. To me it seems that he uses the phrase in its traditional pejorative sense. It makes complete sense that way - he's saying that you have to speak to the whole range of people, not just those that are on-side with the establishment. Of course, you're right that it was a really bizarre choice of words.
Anyway, he'll be mayor in a couple of days regardless.
Although that looks like quite an outlier based on what we have seen (neck and neck ish polls) - that makes more sense to me from what I'm hearing from people I know. The blunt truth is that very few people are really interested in the whole EU issue. They just don't see the importance of the EU to their everyday lives.
The actual poll has it
Remain 39% (+1) Leave 36% (+2)
What I quoted above was the Wisdom Index poll of what people expected the result to be.
My point is that most people have already turned off - they think that whatever their own intentions, Remain will have it in the bag because people aren't that engaged. Lack of engagement = status quo = remain
Far too early to stick a fork in it. We've weeks to go. Most voters aren't paying much attention until the final 4, then really in final 2.
We have not received the Government booklet yet as Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are held over until after tomorrow. I do agree that the voter is not really listening and the next few days will be dominated by the results of the various elections and the impact, particularly if labour do badly. I would expect the voter's interest to come on board once the TV debates are aired and that both sides are required to answer serious questions; the result may well depend on who comes over as the most realistic proposition for the UK
I imagine this has already been posted, but, if not, it purports to be a Press TV interview from 2009, during which the future Mayor of London refers to Uncle Toms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPqHMcNUuP0
Doesn't necessarily fill one with confidence.
It was posted last night and the Telegraph has picked up on it now.
As you can imagine the usual suspects just brushed it off, nothing to see, move along
I've not watched the video but can you give a single reason why he's used a term he defines as racist? You keep saying he didn't mean what he said, so what DID he mean?
See this post from last night about what Khan could've meant (from JohnLoony who, from memory, is no Labour supporter):
The flocking of left wingers here to offer up various unconvincing defences of Khan shows they are panicking about the latest revelation. Who exactly was Sadiq Khan referring to as "Uncle Toms" if he wasn't calling anyone by that term? That's an even worse argument than trying to distract by pointing to what some blogger said about traitors.
Watch the video. The answer is that he was talking about nobody, about a policy he said you couldn't follow, and that he didn't follow. Instead, he said you need to speak to critical friends like Quilliam. It is a lesson in two things: First, try not to use the language of slavery and Jim Crow in South-Eastern England. Second, politicians should never talk about hypotheticals.
It sounded as if he said "Uncle Tom" (not "Uncle Toms"), as in "Uncle Tom Cobbley and all" (i.e. everybody).
I don't know whether that's the correct interpretation, but it makes a hell of a lot more sense than him calling Muslims traitors if they talked to the government, a second after saying how it was important for Muslims to talk to government.
That's not the correct interpretation. He is clearly using Uncle Tons to mean peopele willingly acquiescent to him.
However he's clearly not calling moderate Muslims Uncle Toms, he's talking in generalities.
You'd have to be a safe space loving grievance hunter to take offence. Or a giant hypocrite.
Mr. Royale, enough understand that to use it (my French is almost zero, and I get it). Besides, sometimes having something that's only understood by some can work well, because it gets people talking about what it means.
Danny565 Stop making excuses for this man...If he had meant to say Uncle Tom Cobley then why didn't he,,He plainly said Uncle Tom.. and we all know what that means
Like I said last night: why would he be insulting someone a minute after explaining why he was working with them? Why would he be saying it was a bad thing for Muslims to work with the government, when KHAN HIMSELF was in charge of the government talking to Muslims at the time of the video?!?
His argument was that he needed to work with people who disagree with him, such as Uncle Toms like the Quilliam Foundation.
No, that wasn't what he was saying at all. Both he and the interviewer singled out the Quilliam Foundation as someone who he DID agree with, and the interviewer was asking why he didn't also talk to people who they didn't agree with [i.e. more anti-government hardline Muslim groups].
See from 3:22 (starting with the interviewer's question "there's been some criticism that your department is only speaking to people who agree with your policies, like the Quilliam Foundation - when are you going to start talking to people who disagree with you?"
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1-5danu5rQ
So I'll ask again: how would it make sense for him to be insulting Muslims seconds after saying he agreed with them?
When you're explaining at this level - you're losing. We all know what Uncle Tom means. Sadiq used it and also said it was racist. That's the point.
Have you watched the video for yourself, or are you still solely basing it on the Daily Mail headline?
I've just watched it. I don't have an axe to grind against Khan. To me it seems that he uses the phrase in its traditional pejorative sense. It makes complete sense that way - he's saying that you have to speak to the whole range of people, not just those that are on-side with the establishment. Of course, you're right that it was a really bizarre choice of words.
Anyway, he'll be mayor in a couple of days regardless.
But the thing is this would not really make sense with the pejorative term -- the implication of "Uncle Tom" as an insult would be that Muslims are traitors for working with white Establishment figures, but why would Khan be using the term like that seconds after saying how he thought it was a good thing that Muslim groups actually WERE working with government??
I've just watched it. I don't have an axe to grind against Khan. To me it seems that he uses the phrase in its traditional pejorative sense. It makes complete sense that way - he's saying that you have to speak to the whole range of people, not just those that are on-side with the establishment. Of course, you're right that it was a really bizarre choice of words.
Anyway, he'll be mayor in a couple of days regardless.
he'd have to be including himself in the "Uncle Toms" category?
I had an uncle Tom. He worked in the steelworks in stoke.
Have you watched the video for yourself, or are you still solely basing it on the Daily Mail headline?
He gave an interview while a government minister on the vile Iranian propaganda channel Press TV - a station dripping with all the repulsive extremism of a government that publicly hangs people on cranes for being gay - he chose to do that and then used the 'Uncle Tom' remark.
Both goldsmith and Khan are campaigning on identity politics not policies and I only wish they could both lose but it isn't going to happen
Good to see you back here kingbongo, making an all too rare appearance on PB.com. At one time iirc you were very much a permanent fixture on PB.com. Don't be a stranger.
Danny565 Stop making excuses for this man...If he had meant to say Uncle Tom Cobley then why didn't he,,He plainly said Uncle Tom.. and we all know what that means
Like I said last night: why would he be insulting someone a minute after explaining why he was working with them? Why would he be saying it was a bad thing for Muslims to work with the government, when KHAN HIMSELF was in charge of the government talking to Muslims at the time of the video?!?
His argument was that he needed to work with people who disagree with him, such as Uncle Toms like the Quilliam Foundation.
No, that wasn't what he was saying at all. Both he and the interviewer singled out the Quilliam Foundation as someone who he DID agree with, and the interviewer was asking why he didn't also talk to people who they didn't agree with [i.e. more anti-government hardline Muslim groups].
See from 3:22 (starting with the interviewer's question "there's been some criticism that your department is only speaking to people who agree with your policies, like the Quilliam Foundation - when are you going to start talking to people who disagree with you?"
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1-5danu5rQ
So I'll ask again: how would it make sense for him to be insulting Muslims seconds after saying he agreed with them?
When you're explaining at this level - you're losing. We all know what Uncle Tom means. Sadiq used it and also said it was racist. That's the point.
Have you watched the video for yourself, or are you still solely basing it on the Daily Mail headline?
I've just watched it. I don't have an axe to grind against Khan. To me it seems that he uses the phrase in its traditional pejorative sense. It makes complete sense that way - he's saying that you have to speak to the whole range of people, not just those that are on-side with the establishment. Of course, you're right that it was a really bizarre choice of words.
Anyway, he'll be mayor in a couple of days regardless.
But the thing is this would not really make sense with the pejorative term -- the implication of "Uncle Tom" as an insult would be that Muslims are traitors for working with white Establishment figures, but why would Khan be using the term like that seconds after saying how he thought it was a good thing that Muslim groups actually WERE working with government??
I don't know. It doesn't make much sense. Is he aware that it is a pejorative term rather than a shorthand for 'integrated minorities'.
But the thing is this would not really make sense with the pejorative term -- the implication of "Uncle Tom" as an insult would be that Muslims are traitors for working with white Establishment figures, but why would Khan be using the term like that seconds after saying how he thought it was a good thing that Muslim groups actually WERE working with government??
The issue is that Khan is looking at it from his point of view as a conservative Muslim, rather than the point of view as a moderate Muslim. He will have been brought up in an environment to view Muslims who drink alcohol or eat bacon sandwiches as "Uncle Toms". He probably didn't even think it was a bad thing to say at the time and only realised when it was too late. It is the kind of prejudice that moderate Muslims face within their own community, in fact it is the kind of prejudice that all minority people face in their own communities. 25 years ago my dad joined the Conservatives, he was called all manner of things by other Indians who were solidly Labour voting at the time. Khan is no different to them.
On the subject of the Mayoral elections, I have absolutely no idea who I am going to vote for. I shall be visiting the polling station because I have a proxy vote to cast, but what I do on my own behalf is in the lap of the gods.
Yesterday someone (apologies can't remember who) put it v well:
A cr*p party and an ok candidate or an ok party and a cr*p candidate.
I am seriously thinking of not voting. Not in a NOTA sense just a meh sense (and I *hate* the thought of not voting). In the end I will probably vote Zac because although it turns my stomach to see a self-entitled, priveleged, inconsequential, enviroloon get anywhere near the reins of power, he might just be ineffectual enough for us not to notice his tenure in office.
Then again I might vote for Sadiq.
I'm glad I am not in London. I would find it almost impossible to vote for Zac for all the reasons you've said, plus a dog whistle campaign that has brought absolutely no credit on the party or him.
Of course in Scotland with Ruth it is Tory, Tory all the way (we get 2 votes to make the SNP feel even better about themselves).
Comments
Although your initial post did make me smile, on account of being perpetually called a PBTory for some time. Cameron's idiocy has made that less common of late. I do wonder how the vote will go.
“the lowest in history that any potential Republican candidate polls among this traditionally loyal demographic," according to the article you posted.
What polls are showing Trump winning Florida over Clinton?
http://maristpoll.marist.edu/313-trump-ahead-in-fl-il-kasich-up-in-oh-clinton-ahead-in-fl-il-and-oh/
You'll have to do better than rubbish a poll because you don't like the originator.
Are you going to repeat your tactical vote of 1992?
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/727773655879520256
That'll go down well with Leave.
On a serious note, given some things (such as the Wehrmacht) are being delayed until after the referendum, the fact this isn't suggests either the pressure on Merkel from Erdogan is massive and immediate, or the EC thinks this won't have an impact on the UK vote.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_clinton-5633.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_trump_vs_clinton-5635.html
Not sure where you are cherry picking those figures from?
Some have suggested he probably meant "Uncle Tom Cobley" (as in, "speak to every tom dick and harry") ratther than the "Uncle Tom's Cabin" meaning.
Chances of winning:
70% Remain – 30% Leave (Unchanged)
Result forecast:
Remain 54% – Leave 46% (Unchanged)
Last updated 4th May 2016
https://electionsetc.com/
In the upcoming EU referendum, do you think the UK will...
Remain 41%, Leave 23%, Don't know 36%
http://www.tns-bmrb.co.uk/press-release/eu-referendum-remain-maintains-lead-following-obama-intervention
I post all the polls that I see and let PBers make their own mind up. Do your research !!
It's all well and good assuming he runs a perfect campaign, and she does nothing. However neither is at all probable.
A cr*p party and an ok candidate or an ok party and a cr*p candidate.
I am seriously thinking of not voting. Not in a NOTA sense just a meh sense (and I *hate* the thought of not voting). In the end I will probably vote Zac because although it turns my stomach to see a self-entitled, priveleged, inconsequential, enviroloon get anywhere near the reins of power, he might just be ineffectual enough for us not to notice his tenure in office.
Then again I might vote for Sadiq.
I don't say it's wrong, it feels about right based on what we know, but we know how GE2015 turned out.
Doing some crude back of the sweet wrapper (no smoking in the office) calculations, I have Khan at 45 Goldsmith at 37 and the rest on 18 and Khan winning 55-45 which isn't far off the poll but there you go.
UKIP, Greens and Lib Dems are statistically tied for third but I think all three will get over the 5% GLA threshold.
You're not the Topping I used to know.
Remain 39% (+1) Leave 36% (+2)
What I quoted above was the Wisdom Index poll of what people expected the result to be.
See from 3:22 (starting with the interviewer's question "there's been some criticism that your department is only speaking to people who agree with your policies, like the Quilliam Foundation - when are you going to start talking to people who disagree with you?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1-5danu5rQ
So I'll ask again: how would it make sense for him to be insulting Muslims seconds after saying he agreed with them?
https://twitter.com/TimMinogue/status/727782882417250304
I would say the Tory campaign has failed because the charge that Khan is an extremist is not credible:
He doesn't look like an extremist (he wears western clothes and no beard)
He doesn't sound like an extremist
His voting record is not that of an extremist (voted for gay marriage)
And even if he is an extremist, what then? It's not like the mayor has powers over the security services.
By contrast, Miliband in Sturgeon's pocket was credible as Miliband was seen as weak, while Sturgeon was seen as standing up for Scotland (to the detriment of England)
Negotiations might have to be prolonged beyond the two years allowed for, although the European parliament and individual member states could jeopardise any extension of the process, according to the House of Lords European Union committee.
Agreeing a trade deal with the EU is likely to take even longer, peers suggest, between four and nine years if past experience is anything to go by.
Despite the government’s repeated advice that the referendum vote will be final, the report points out that it would still be possible to reverse a decision to withdraw from the EU – for example if there was a change of government.
The 19-member committee, chaired by the former Conservative MP Lord Boswell of Aynho, avoided expressing any view on Brexit. Their review is based on testimony from two senior lawyers, Sir David Edward, a former judge at the court of justice of the European Union, and Prof Derrick Wyatt QC, emeritus professor of law at Oxford University.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/04/brexit-britons-abroad-rights-european-union-referendum
Ultimately price is not everything - when you go with the AA you get one of their fleet of dedicated vehicles to come and sort things out, with GF they tend (I think) to use nearby garages.
Or I will vote to Leave the AA :-)
I don't really share from twatter, but this was absolutely ruthless.
"My guess is that the inclination of government and parliament would be to be generous as regards those who had already made their lives in the UK, knowing that it would be likely to be reciprocated.”
His "Combined Forecast (mean)" is in fact a combination of the following:
Betting Markets (Yes really - quite a departure for an academic!)
Polls (of course)
Expert forecasts (whoever they are)
Volunteer forecasts ( -ditto- )
Poll based models (eh???)
Non poll based models ( -ditto- )
Which all sounds very impressive, but the truth be told, across these six categories the percentage ranges are quite narrow with Remain scoring between 52.0% - 55.6%, and Leave between 43.8% - 48.0%. Check out the website for yourself.
Both goldsmith and Khan are campaigning on identity politics not policies and I only wish they could both lose but it isn't going to happen
Wonder if any media is going to be hanging around certain areas of London looking for over-enthusiastic persuasion.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/04/rational-britons-will-vote-against-brexit-believes-tony-blair
Both goldsmith and Khan are campaigning on identity politics not policies and I only wish they could both lose but it isn't going to happen
Is there somewhere where I can see the full interview please?
Anyway, he'll be mayor in a couple of days regardless.
As you can imagine the usual suspects just brushed it off, nothing to see, move along
However he's clearly not calling moderate Muslims Uncle Toms, he's talking in generalities.
You'd have to be a safe space loving grievance hunter to take offence. Or a giant hypocrite.
I had an uncle Tom. He worked in the steelworks in stoke.
Anyway, Uncle Ben's is tastier (one assumes)
Both goldsmith and Khan are campaigning on identity politics not policies and I only wish they could both lose but it isn't going to happen
Good to see you back here kingbongo, making an all too rare appearance on PB.com.
At one time iirc you were very much a permanent fixture on PB.com. Don't be a stranger.
It would be impossible to discern the difference.
Of course in Scotland with Ruth it is Tory, Tory all the way (we get 2 votes to make the SNP feel even better about themselves).